JOHN J. WENTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE INDEPENDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An insurance beneficiary appealed a summary judgment denying recovery on two accidental death policies. The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the death was accidental and whether policy exclusions for self-inflicted injuries, felonies, and poisoning applied, making summary judgment improper.
Summary judgment was improper because the medical examiner's deposition, read in the light most favorable to the appellant, leaves genuine issues of material fact as to whether the death was accidental and whether any of the policy exclusions applied.
[1] A summary final judgment for a defendant is proper only when the facts and reasonable inferences therefrom clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff has no right of action o…
[2] When considering a motion for summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party moved against.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A summary final judment for a defendant is properly entered only when the facts established and all reasonable inferences from these facts clearly demonstrate that a plaintiff has no right of action or that a defense is established without genuine issue and that the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Establishes the standard for summary judgment review applicable to the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought recovery as beneficiary under two insurance policies for the claimed accidental death of his son. The insurance company denied re…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Summary Judgment Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was the plaintiff in an action upon two insurance policies. He appeals from a summary final judgment entered upon the pleadings and depositions on file. The question presented by the appeal is whether there are any genuine issues of material fact.
A summary final judment for a defendant is properly entered only when the facts established and all reasonable inferences from these facts clearly demonstrate that a plaintiff has no right of action or that a defense is established without genuine issue and that the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Lake v. Konstantinu, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 171. Appellant’s complaint sought recovery as the beneficiary under two policies for a claimed accidental death of his son. The appellee denied the right to recovery upon four grounds: (1) the death was not caused by accidental means as required by the policies; (2) recovery was barred by an exception in the policies which excluded coverage for self-inflicted injuries or destruction; (3) recovery was barred by an exception in the policies which excluded coverage for injuries received while committing or attempting to commit an assault or felony; (4) recovery was barred by an exception which excluded recovery for injuries as a result of poisoning.
The appellee urges that the deposition of the medical examiner is sufficient to establish all four of the defenses without genuine issue of material fact. We hold that the record is not sufficient and that when this deposition is read in the light most favorable to the party moved against, it leaves genuine issues as to each of these defenses. As to the contention that the death was not by accidental means, see Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Nash, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 4. As to the defense of self-destruction, see Weinstock v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, Fla.App.1971, 247 So.2d 503. The defense that the death was the result of poison depends entirely upon a factual conclusion which is not warranted upon the deposition of the medical examiner. See annot., 14 A.L.R. 3rd 783, and cases cited therein, where it states, “Unless the substance is one which is invariably regarded as a poison, such as arsenic or strychnine, the issue whether a given compound is a poison within the scope of a provision excluding or limiting liability for injury or death from poison is ordinarily held one for the trier of facts.”
We do not at this stage of this case hold as a matter of law that any one of the defenses tendered is insufficient. We simply hold that upon the record now before us it does not affirmatively appear without genuine issue of material fact that the appellant cannot recover upon his complaint. The summary final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riguard Colon v. Serafín Lara and Carmen Lara, 389 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…sue of material fact was presented, and the trial court could only speculate as to the composition of the shower door, appellees were entitled as a matter of law to summary judgment in their favor. Wentz v. Independent Life & Accident Insurance Co., 254 So. 2d 368 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). It is well-established law that where the landlord has surrendered the entire possession and control of the premises to the tenant and where no fraud or concealment by the landlord is shown, the landlord is not liable for injurie…
-
Rice v. Mercy Hosp. Corp., 275 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…material conflicting evidence or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses. See Meigs v. Lear, 210 So. 2d 479 (Fla.App.1968); Bishop v. City of Clearwater, 258 So. 2d 337 (Fla.App.1972), and Wentz v. Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company, 254 So. 2d 368 (Fla.App.1971). The summary judgment appealed from is reversed.…
-
Derrer v. Paulk, 514 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ord affirmatively establishes, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, that the defendant fulfilled its aforesaid contractual duty, and, therefore, was not negligent in this case as a matter of law. See Wentz v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 254 So. 2d 368, 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Nash, 97 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1957)
- Lake v. Ilias Konstantinu and Parke, 189 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Weinstock v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am., 247 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)